Dublin Metrolink - future routes for next Metrolink

Most of Europe built their motorways in the 40s,50s and 60s.

We were decades behind.

A motorway network is essential for attracting FDI and the basic running of a country.

Logistics needs to be able to estimate travel times within reasonable accuracy, which you couldn't do with national roads going through numerous towns and villages.

Now our public transport network is decades behind so that has to be tackled.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_motorway_construction_in_European_nations

We were absolutely behind but there's no reason to pretend that 'most of europe built their motorways in 40s,50s and 60s'.

I studied economics for many years and never came across anything that equated motorways with 'attracting FDI and the basic running of a country', perhaps you could provide a few references?

I had understood that Dublin-Waterford had a very tenuous, at best, business case to be built. In fact I think Dublin-Rosslare was the one more justified in terms of a link to the South East.

But I think everything else built was needed - in fact there's a case to be made that more is needed - Cork to Limerick, Atlantic corridor completion from Waterford to Cork and Galway to Sligo, a link from Dublin to the North West etc? Like it's not like we have thousands of KM ofmotorway so wondering which you reckon shouldn't have been built?

Your detailed post has won me over. Please accept my apologies for not being precise with my posting.

One-way systems, closed loops to cars etc. To get public transport to SW Dublin City will require sacrificing cars.

We will have them by the time a LUAS SW is built, but it will be fun to see the people of Terenure and Templeogue rejecting a LUAS because of their precious cars.

Why are you making a claim on my behalf instead of addressing what I actually wrote?

Primary road network per capita is an important metric in measuring the development of a country, and it's accepted that some level of high quality road network is required for a modern economy. That doesn't mean adding even more motorways equals improving the economy. Separately, anyone who studies economics learns early on that correlation does not equal causation and that relying on correlation tends to result in mistaking a confounding variable for a causative one.

If one looks at the Irish economy now versus 1990 when the motorway network was non-existent, it's easy to say "look! the motorways improved and so did our economy so one must follow the other!". If you actually look at the industries and areas where our economy is overwhelmingly based, not at all. Why would FDI care about a motorway network when it's overwhelmingly based on the service sector and in two large cities? Of course it wouldn't.

Pharmaceuticals and medical devices are part of the services sector?

Why are you making a claim on my behalf instead of addressing what I actually wrote?

What's with the attitude? I stated that I didn't understand your point and gave reasons why I found it confusing given the sources I mentioned. An invitation for you to expand on what ever point you were trying to make - specifically:

I studied economics for many years and never came across anything that equated motorways with 'attracting FDI and the basic running of a country', perhaps you could provide a few references?

I read this as a claim that being a prosperous ("well run") country was independent of the quality of itss roads or did I misunderstand you? If not, again I'll say: I don't understand your point?

By the way, you're not the only person who is well educated here or is highly qualified in various fields from engineering to quantitative finance. Maybe it isn't what you intended, but the way you express yourself certainly suggests you think your background entitles you to express an opinion without challenge. That's not how discussion boards work.

In terms of the next Metrolink Route I’m very much an advocator of Tallaght - Coolock/Howth through the SW city and the North/NE region instead of Metro Orbital West or whatever they’re calling it these days. I would think that for what will be a mostly above ground, yet still grade separated route, a Luas Green Line (essentially a light metro) style approach is much more cost effective and useful and we should save our next Metro Line for another city-centre penetrating large commuter corridor.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I feel that the vast majority of the benefits of Metro West can be achieved with an orbital Luas along with the added interoperability with the rest of the network, all at a much lower price point then a metro. At the very most it should be built like the GL to semi-metro standards for a potential future upgrade if the need arises.

This is just my thoughts on the matter, it’s in no way backed up a CBA or research but just from looking at the route, and the current price of ML. Any thoughts..?

Probably. Even if factors like maximum grade are the same (and I’m not sure they are - trams generally handle steeper slopes than trains), Metro is fully automated, so that may require a higher level of segregation than Luas, which means a more expensive build, and while Luas can get away with a “99% segregated” way if a small section if it would be prohibitively expensive, that option isn’t available with Metro.

Also, each Metro train is going to be more expensive than a Luas tram. The lower operating costs of Metro, once built would even out that cost… but only if there’s enough passenger demand to fill the bigger metro trains: otherwise you’re wasting money on space that wasn’t needed.

Depends on what you mean but potentially much more expensive - the entire route has to be separated as a fully automated system cannot have any at-grade sharing of space with roads, footpaths, etc. Stations require platform screen doors and full separation with underpasses or overpasses, etc. to allow people and/or traffic to cross the alignment. A lot more expensive than laying tracks on existing roads and doing little more than constructing a stretch of heightened kerbs for the stops.

The original Metrowest design wasn't metro anyway despite its name - it was more-or-less Luas - had sharp corners, on-road sections, etc. and journey times were not particularly impressive. It reflected the continuing strange fixation with putting the most expensive public transport infrastructure in the least dense places of the city. An combined bus/greenway/cycleway route linking the suburbs outside the M50 - with a new Liffey Valley bridge - would make a lot more sense, and would cost considerably less than dusting off the old Metrowest plan.

If it came to it, if the Howth Branch is being shuttelised anyway, it might make sense to convert it to high-frequency, high-capacity Metro, taking strain off the northern line with passengers changing onto a Connolly bound train at the junction, and also giving Howth residents a direct connection back to Dublin…? I know it’s not a concrete plan but I’ve heard the idea being tossed around on other subforums and honestly it doesn’t sound like the worst idea… if you’re ending the metro in Coolock, it would be worth it to extend to the DART for a connection at Howth Jnct and at that stage, I can’t see it not being worthwhile to convert the Howth Branch to Metro…?